1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Inccorect statement in the FAQ?

Home Forums Research Law and Politics Inccorect statement in the FAQ?

This topic contains 4 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Seasteader- Seasteader- 3 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1528
    Profile photo of Terraformer
    Terraformer
    Participant

    FAQ wrote:
    Even if an island is unoccupied, it extends the owning country’s EEZ, including fishing and mineral rights, which are always of potential value. So even small, barren, remote rocks are claimed by existing countries and will be defended.

    Part wrote:
    Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

    So no, small, barren, remote rocks do not extend their country’s EEZ, unless there’s human habitation there or an economic justification for a base. The upshot is, if you can find a small rock sticking out of the ocean in international waters, you’re free to use it as a seamount.

    #13793
    Profile photo of wohl1917
    wohl1917
    Participant

    or no EEZ, able to sustain human habitation or economic life or not, if you build it ‘they’ will come! Check out the Minerva Reef or the Republic of Rose Island sagas. International Law could, can and will be used as a defence and basis to establish Legal Standing in the Community of Nations and World Court, but only if you can last long enough to get there. History has clearly shown if you attract attention to yourself by laying claim to even the smallest most barren, remote rock out there, you won’t. Furthermore, it is the prerogative of the claiming country to decide if a ‘rock’ has an EEZ or not, apparently, because if you look at maps you’ll see that they all seem to put 200 nm EEZs around everything, UNCLOS be damned!

    < http://ocr.wikia.com/wiki/Oceanic_Citizens_Republic_Wiki>

    Profile photo of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    Terraformer wrote:

    FAQ wrote:

    Even if an island is unoccupied, it extends the owning country’s EEZ, including fishing and mineral rights, which are always of potential value. So even small, barren, remote rocks are claimed by existing countries and will be defended.

    Part wrote:
    Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

    So no, small, barren, remote rocks do not extend their country’s EEZ, unless there’s human habitation there or an economic justification for a base. The upshot is, if you can find a small rock sticking out of the ocean in international waters, you’re free to use it as a seamount.

    [/quote]

    That UNCLOS section means rocks by themselves shall have no EEZ of their own. But they can be used to extend the EEZ of a country. Brazil is a perfect example, with the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago extending it’s EEZ far from its shores. There might be a research station on those rocks, but they are certainly barren and cannot sustain human habitation.

    #13817
    Profile photo of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    Don’t forget the rock that both Japan and China claim… They have disputes over it all the time… Isn’t there another one that N&S Korea both claim and clash over?

    Later,

    J.L.F.

    Never be afraid to try something new…

    Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.

    #13866
    Profile photo of Seasteader-
    Seasteader-
    Participant

    That UNCLOS section means rocks by themselves shall have no EEZ of their own. But they can be used to extend the EEZ of a country. Brazil is a perfect example, with the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago extending it’s EEZ far from its shores. There might be a research station on those rocks, but they are certainly barren and cannot sustain human habitation.

    HENCE the need for formation of linked Atolls to form Reefs, that should eventually be filled up to more than rocks and being alive with reef life and fish breeding ground and later habitable and filled places not unlike ACTUAL land masses.

    Perhaps a few ‘loans’ from rare island wildlife regions (liek (Galapagos) towards formation of sanctuaries to bring added reason for the SS landmass should be considered.

    Most importantly though, the colonists must not represent ANY national interests by governmental association and be truly intent on ending red tape as it’s intent than extension of political or national power. Few of us can truly claim that, and that is why SSing has not yet taken off. Probably not neutral enough to dare try it.

    Total Physical Freedom and Total Mental Autonomy, Tempered with Common Sense.

    Utopia – Capitalism with Socialist Caps on Personal Wealth – US$20 Million
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36665503866

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate